WATER, COKE, OR A PESACHDIK MARTINI?
If you’re a fresser like I am, you know very well that we affluent Jews eat more like Pharaoh on Pesach than did our enslaved ancestors.
“Why is this week different from all other weeks of the year?”
. . . on every other week of the year, if we crave sweets, we eat a chocolate bar. But, on this week, we eat only kosher li-Pesach marshmallow-and-macadamia truffles bathed in real Swiss organic 83% cacao chocolate?
. . . on every other week of the year, if we want a piece of fruit, we take an apple or orange. But, on this week, we eat only imported kosher li-Pesach Barbary figs glazed in turbinado sugar.
. . . on every other week of the year, if we want to schmeer cream cheese on a cracker, we break off a piece of matzo. But, on this week, we schmeer only kosher li-Pesach bagels.
In fact, last year as I was doing my Pesach shopping, I spied a box of kosher li-Pesach bagel mix. When I thought no one was listening, I mumbled, “I can’t believe it. Now we’re ready for Moshiach to come.” A young Lubavitcher overheard me and exclaimed, “Why? Have you heard something about the Rebbe?”
My congregation in Atlanta had one Pesachdik quirk. Although it was no longer strictly orthodox, its rabbi still supervised the production of kosher li-Pesach Coca-Cola. Why? Because some 80 years ago, the schule’s orthodox rabbi was the first to ascertain that Coke was suitable for Pesach.
So, I would travel at 4:00 AM to watch bottles go round-and-round, filling up with soda and syrup on which some Chasidische rov in New York had already put his hechsher.
Then came that first fateful Pesach. The Jews of Atlanta drank Pesachdik Coca-Cola to their hearts’ content. All but the orthodox Jews, that is. When they discovered that my schule had no mechitza, they refused to drinks the beverage that was bottled under my watchful, but obviously heretical, eye.
Nebbish. You think that the tzaddikim had to suffice with drinking water? Not for long. Now Carmel makes kosher li-Pesach vodka, so they can enjoy a martini with their Seder dinner. Mah nishtanah?
March 25, 2008
March 22, 2008
OBAMA AND HIS PREACHER: REJECTING THE MESSAGE BUT NOT THE MESSENGER
In 35 years in ministry, I I have exhorted my parishioners from the pulpit some 1,855 times, excluding weddings and funerals. I’ve rallied them to observe the Sabbath and Holy Days and kosher laws, to be more compassionate and socially conscious, and to love their neighbors and their God.
I have also exhorted them about some pretty nasty, meanspirited things, too, particularly in my youth: Hate the Palestinians. Hate the Arabs. Hate Reagan. Hate the military-industrial establishment. Hate the Religious Right. Hate Falwell. Hate Jesse Jackson. Hate. Hate. Hate.
I don’t preach hate any more, having attained the years that bring the philosophical mind. But, oh, there were the days. More importantly, though, my parishioners didn’t really listen to too much of what I said, nor internalize it, nor certainly act upon it.
Looking back, that was a good thing. Ironic, then, that despite not listening to me, they by-and-large loved me. They routinely renewed my contracts, invited me to dinner, and told me that my sermons were great.
Did that make me an ineffective preacher? Probably not. It is more about the dynamics between pulpit and pew. Good preachers are expected to make incisive, even acerbic, pronouncements. They will more often be criticized for being limp-wristed than for being brusque. A preacher will more likely get fired for not visiting the sick and bereaved than he will for speaking controversially from the pulpit.
Parishioners in the pew, on the other hand, are expected to listen politely, nod appreciatively, occasionally criticize respectfully, and tell the preacher that he “really told them today!” but still take his imprecations with a grain of salt. “That’s what he’s supposed to do,” they say.
To understand the relationship between pew and pulpit is to make sense out of the relationship between Barak Obama and his rancorous pastor. Sitting in his congregation and mindlessly soaking up his preacher’s venom simply “because he said so,” is about as likely as getting my congregants sufficiently whipped up to drop a half-eaten cheeseburger.
My mean-spirited pronouncements were wrong then, and Barak’s preacher is wrong now. Somehow, though, most of our congregants stuck with us and either miraculously, or out of sheer indifference, neither of us was fired.
Perhaps Barak should have taken a posture of conscience and resigned his membership. Maybe my parishioners should have done the same. But, standing by ones preacher bespeaks a complex web of relationships that transcends his preachments, even if they are sometimes wild-eyed. Staying loyal to ones errant preacher might be about his having talked your kid out of suicide, or bailing you out when you were destitute, or saying just the right words when you were grieving, or being by your side when everyone else had rejected you, or adding to your celebration at a joyous moment in your life.
These are great reasons to remain faithful to ones preacher that might even exceed vituperative preaching. Looking back, these are why so many of my parishioners held me in respect even during my most nasty sermons. And, I would like to believe that these are the reasons that Barak stands by his preacher, but not his preachings.
Once upon a time, I took my kids to hear Louis Farrakhan speak, primarily so that they could be inoculated to hatred and anti-Semitism up close and personal. In some perverse way, we were not disappointed.
The next morning, the kids and I had breakfast at the Adams Mark, and who should be sitting alone in the next booth but Minister Farrakhan. I approached him, yarmulke on my head, and introduced myself as a local rabbi. I said that I had attended his speech the night before.
Ignoring my comment, he beckoned my kids closer, and said, “You are fine children. Remember to study well and say your prayers so that you grow to be good people,” and shook each ones hand.
I harbor no delusions. Louis Farrakhan will always be a skunk. But, for that moment, I could appreciate even from one so despicable, that being a preacher adds up to more than the pronouncements from ones pulpit.
As one truly comes to understand the complex dynamics of ministry, the idea of rejecting the message while standing by the messenger sounds less like doubletalk and more like the prudence that good judgment demands. I thank my parishioners for frequently cutting me that slack. One hopes that the same is true of Barak and his scurrilous preacher.
In 35 years in ministry, I I have exhorted my parishioners from the pulpit some 1,855 times, excluding weddings and funerals. I’ve rallied them to observe the Sabbath and Holy Days and kosher laws, to be more compassionate and socially conscious, and to love their neighbors and their God.
I have also exhorted them about some pretty nasty, meanspirited things, too, particularly in my youth: Hate the Palestinians. Hate the Arabs. Hate Reagan. Hate the military-industrial establishment. Hate the Religious Right. Hate Falwell. Hate Jesse Jackson. Hate. Hate. Hate.
I don’t preach hate any more, having attained the years that bring the philosophical mind. But, oh, there were the days. More importantly, though, my parishioners didn’t really listen to too much of what I said, nor internalize it, nor certainly act upon it.
Looking back, that was a good thing. Ironic, then, that despite not listening to me, they by-and-large loved me. They routinely renewed my contracts, invited me to dinner, and told me that my sermons were great.
Did that make me an ineffective preacher? Probably not. It is more about the dynamics between pulpit and pew. Good preachers are expected to make incisive, even acerbic, pronouncements. They will more often be criticized for being limp-wristed than for being brusque. A preacher will more likely get fired for not visiting the sick and bereaved than he will for speaking controversially from the pulpit.
Parishioners in the pew, on the other hand, are expected to listen politely, nod appreciatively, occasionally criticize respectfully, and tell the preacher that he “really told them today!” but still take his imprecations with a grain of salt. “That’s what he’s supposed to do,” they say.
To understand the relationship between pew and pulpit is to make sense out of the relationship between Barak Obama and his rancorous pastor. Sitting in his congregation and mindlessly soaking up his preacher’s venom simply “because he said so,” is about as likely as getting my congregants sufficiently whipped up to drop a half-eaten cheeseburger.
My mean-spirited pronouncements were wrong then, and Barak’s preacher is wrong now. Somehow, though, most of our congregants stuck with us and either miraculously, or out of sheer indifference, neither of us was fired.
Perhaps Barak should have taken a posture of conscience and resigned his membership. Maybe my parishioners should have done the same. But, standing by ones preacher bespeaks a complex web of relationships that transcends his preachments, even if they are sometimes wild-eyed. Staying loyal to ones errant preacher might be about his having talked your kid out of suicide, or bailing you out when you were destitute, or saying just the right words when you were grieving, or being by your side when everyone else had rejected you, or adding to your celebration at a joyous moment in your life.
These are great reasons to remain faithful to ones preacher that might even exceed vituperative preaching. Looking back, these are why so many of my parishioners held me in respect even during my most nasty sermons. And, I would like to believe that these are the reasons that Barak stands by his preacher, but not his preachings.
Once upon a time, I took my kids to hear Louis Farrakhan speak, primarily so that they could be inoculated to hatred and anti-Semitism up close and personal. In some perverse way, we were not disappointed.
The next morning, the kids and I had breakfast at the Adams Mark, and who should be sitting alone in the next booth but Minister Farrakhan. I approached him, yarmulke on my head, and introduced myself as a local rabbi. I said that I had attended his speech the night before.
Ignoring my comment, he beckoned my kids closer, and said, “You are fine children. Remember to study well and say your prayers so that you grow to be good people,” and shook each ones hand.
I harbor no delusions. Louis Farrakhan will always be a skunk. But, for that moment, I could appreciate even from one so despicable, that being a preacher adds up to more than the pronouncements from ones pulpit.
As one truly comes to understand the complex dynamics of ministry, the idea of rejecting the message while standing by the messenger sounds less like doubletalk and more like the prudence that good judgment demands. I thank my parishioners for frequently cutting me that slack. One hopes that the same is true of Barak and his scurrilous preacher.
March 13, 2008
LUNG-AND-LIVER AS CRIME-STOPPER
A woman recently wrote me to take exception to my observation that pitcha (jellied calf’s foot) was the most disgusting of all Jewish foods. “Actually,” she wrote, “The worst is a stew made of cow’s lung and liver.”
“Lunge-und-leber?” I’d entirely forgotten. Thoughts of a steaming tureen of lunge-und-leber ironically brought back a rush of memories about one of the least detestable characters in my life, my Uncle Joe. Joe was a “lovable scoundrel.” Pa paid for a year’s tuition at the University of Chicago. But Yossel never attended a single class, out shooting craps in some Southside alleyway.
Joe was no surrogate father to me, but he coaxed me through the more robust edges of childhood. He took me to the White Sox games and bought me sports regalia and comic books. He died childless at 48 of too much rare steak and too many Lucky Strikes.
He also had his brushes with the law. Nothing violent, mind you. A little shaving of his taxes, changing a number on a check, playing loose with the books. The only victim was the IRS, so you might have even called it “naughty,” but not evil.
But Joe never spent a moment in jail. Whenever he would go astray, Pa knew just the right politician to schmeer, to keep Yossel beyond reach of the law. After all, this was Chicago.
Of course, since Yossel was basically a good Jewish boy, he would pledge to Bubbe, “Ma, if you make me a bowl of lunge-und-leber, I’ll never go wrong again.”
So Bubbe would make lunge-und-leber. The aroma was so toxic that even Amaryllis the cat would hide. Joe would bathe in the nasty stuff and sop up the gravy with chunks of challah.
His pledge, naturally, lasted three months. Then the cycle resumed: Bad check. Bail out. Promises. Lunge-und-leber. And . . .
Pa would admonish me, “Just remember that if you ever rob a bank, Bubbe will have lunge-und-leber for you.” I swore to live a life free of crime. You may be certain that with a deterrent like that, even Chicago’s meanest streets would soon become cheery and bright.
A woman recently wrote me to take exception to my observation that pitcha (jellied calf’s foot) was the most disgusting of all Jewish foods. “Actually,” she wrote, “The worst is a stew made of cow’s lung and liver.”
“Lunge-und-leber?” I’d entirely forgotten. Thoughts of a steaming tureen of lunge-und-leber ironically brought back a rush of memories about one of the least detestable characters in my life, my Uncle Joe. Joe was a “lovable scoundrel.” Pa paid for a year’s tuition at the University of Chicago. But Yossel never attended a single class, out shooting craps in some Southside alleyway.
Joe was no surrogate father to me, but he coaxed me through the more robust edges of childhood. He took me to the White Sox games and bought me sports regalia and comic books. He died childless at 48 of too much rare steak and too many Lucky Strikes.
He also had his brushes with the law. Nothing violent, mind you. A little shaving of his taxes, changing a number on a check, playing loose with the books. The only victim was the IRS, so you might have even called it “naughty,” but not evil.
But Joe never spent a moment in jail. Whenever he would go astray, Pa knew just the right politician to schmeer, to keep Yossel beyond reach of the law. After all, this was Chicago.
Of course, since Yossel was basically a good Jewish boy, he would pledge to Bubbe, “Ma, if you make me a bowl of lunge-und-leber, I’ll never go wrong again.”
So Bubbe would make lunge-und-leber. The aroma was so toxic that even Amaryllis the cat would hide. Joe would bathe in the nasty stuff and sop up the gravy with chunks of challah.
His pledge, naturally, lasted three months. Then the cycle resumed: Bad check. Bail out. Promises. Lunge-und-leber. And . . .
Pa would admonish me, “Just remember that if you ever rob a bank, Bubbe will have lunge-und-leber for you.” I swore to live a life free of crime. You may be certain that with a deterrent like that, even Chicago’s meanest streets would soon become cheery and bright.
March 05, 2008
A ROCKEFELLER AT MY SEDER
Sometimes it feels like I’ve spent every day of my career apologizing for one insufficiency or another. “I’m sorry that I didn’t compliment you enough at the Sisterhood meeting.” “I’m sorry for saying that Hamas was our enemy. After all, Children of God have no enemies.” “I’m sorry for not being able to make all Yom Tovim on weekends.”
My flock rarely apologizes to me. “After all, we’re paying him.” Funny, though, that they routinely apologize for breaches of observance, especially when I have “caught them” in an infraction, forgetting that they weren’t a bunch of Satmar Chasidim.
A mother recently squirmed and apologized, telling me that my services were no longer required to officiate at her daughter’s wedding. “The kids” had decided that it would be too late to start the ceremony after Shabbos, as if I didn’t know that in June we don’t recite Havdalah until 10:00. Apology accepted.
How many times have I strolled through the supermarket and chanced upon this or that parishioner reaching for a package of ham? “It’s for an elderly neighbor,” they stammer. Apology accepted.
Then there was the time that I visited a congregant in the hospital. Immediately upon seeing me, he threw a napkin over his breakfast bacon. Seeing the fat seeping through, he sheepishly declared, “Sorry, Rabbi. Bacon. Doctor’s orders.” Apology accepted.
Looking back over my three-decade-plus career, I can think of only one transgression that really curled my tzitzis. When we moved into my first congregation, one couple was especially helpful in getting us settled in our new environs. With our thanks, we presented them with a beautiful Seder plate. They gushed with gratitude.
Months went by, and they joined us for Shabbos dinner. Again, the wife gushed, “The plate you gave us is so beautiful. And useful, too. We used it just last week.”
“In November?”
“Of course. Those little cups make it just perfect for serving Oysters Rockefeller.”
I gagged on my brisket. “Oysters Rockefeller??? Oysters Rockefeller???" I kept my mouth shut, but couldn’t help thinking, “The chutzpah! I don’t even like Oysters Rockefeller!”
Sometimes it feels like I’ve spent every day of my career apologizing for one insufficiency or another. “I’m sorry that I didn’t compliment you enough at the Sisterhood meeting.” “I’m sorry for saying that Hamas was our enemy. After all, Children of God have no enemies.” “I’m sorry for not being able to make all Yom Tovim on weekends.”
My flock rarely apologizes to me. “After all, we’re paying him.” Funny, though, that they routinely apologize for breaches of observance, especially when I have “caught them” in an infraction, forgetting that they weren’t a bunch of Satmar Chasidim.
A mother recently squirmed and apologized, telling me that my services were no longer required to officiate at her daughter’s wedding. “The kids” had decided that it would be too late to start the ceremony after Shabbos, as if I didn’t know that in June we don’t recite Havdalah until 10:00. Apology accepted.
How many times have I strolled through the supermarket and chanced upon this or that parishioner reaching for a package of ham? “It’s for an elderly neighbor,” they stammer. Apology accepted.
Then there was the time that I visited a congregant in the hospital. Immediately upon seeing me, he threw a napkin over his breakfast bacon. Seeing the fat seeping through, he sheepishly declared, “Sorry, Rabbi. Bacon. Doctor’s orders.” Apology accepted.
Looking back over my three-decade-plus career, I can think of only one transgression that really curled my tzitzis. When we moved into my first congregation, one couple was especially helpful in getting us settled in our new environs. With our thanks, we presented them with a beautiful Seder plate. They gushed with gratitude.
Months went by, and they joined us for Shabbos dinner. Again, the wife gushed, “The plate you gave us is so beautiful. And useful, too. We used it just last week.”
“In November?”
“Of course. Those little cups make it just perfect for serving Oysters Rockefeller.”
I gagged on my brisket. “Oysters Rockefeller??? Oysters Rockefeller???" I kept my mouth shut, but couldn’t help thinking, “The chutzpah! I don’t even like Oysters Rockefeller!”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)